Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Balance, Playcalling, Offensive Success
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Arizona Cardinals
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Yibbyl


Joined: 21 Apr 2011
Posts: 2300
Location: Redding, CA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khodder wrote:
Yibbyl wrote:
khodder wrote:
But just to throw this out there;

When Behind SF 99 runs 145 passes.
When Ahead SF 300 runs, 200 passes.

To the bolded...would you expect anything different?


No. But what I am saying is that you call plays to take advantage of matchups and weakness, not to create balance.

Yeah, I get that. An audible to take advantage of an uncovered receiver being an easy example to understand. Now work with me here, if you are going to call plays to take advantage of mismatches, you first have to do something to get those mismatches on the field in the 1st place. Player evaluation prior to the draft starts this process, then once the player has earned his way onto the field, you utilize him, yes? Remember mismatches can be had in both the passing game and the running attack and, further, on both sides of the ball.

You can also use the run to help create situations that could likely result in a mismatch. Running the ball repeatedly to get the safeties to creep up to the line and then striking with a deep pass in one-on-one coverage, for example. When I suggested that I prefer a coach who will commit to the run more than 35% of the time, it certainly doesn't mean I don't value the passing attack. Of course, every team needs a passing attack sufficient to get chunks of yardage quickly. I just don't want that to be the only real threat the team possesses. My idea of a balanced attack means I want to be effective both running and passing and then actually utilize them both.

Most of the benefits I see coming from the running game helps the D IMO. Sure you can maybe move some opposing team's safeties, but clock control helps even more, again IMO. Having that ability to run as well as pass means the team can better dictate what the opposing offense is going to do. So, when a team like the Bills, who have lately struggled to stop anyone by air or ground, commits (or not if you're name is Chan) to running the ball, the opposing offense would have less time and therefore fewer opportunities to target the suspect D. Or in a case like the Cardinals, utilizing the running game means you could use it to eat minutes and then likely forcing the opposition to try more attempts passing against a D that excels at shutting down that kind of attack, in a sense forcing the opposition into a disadvantageous strategic matchup. Make sense? Having a more balanced offense IMO means you will likely get more opportunities for mismatches on both sides of the ball, while at the same time reducing the number of mismatches you might face.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuperFlyTNT


Joined: 07 Feb 2011
Posts: 422
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe I completely agree with the premise of everything you said Khodder - probably just the verbiage that confused people.

I absolutely would love having an offense that is good enough at both running and passing the ball to attack a defense at its weak point on any given play. Obviously you have to randomize play-calling at least a bit to make sure the defense doesn't know exactly what you're going to do given their look. However, exploiting defenses that way puts the most amount of pressure on them.

The only other really successful scenario I can see is to be so good at something that the other team can't stop it even though they know that's coming the vast majority of the time. I can see us winning the super bowl doing that with the running game - but only if we've got the hogs blocking for a Jim Brown clone. IMO it's easier to impose your will as an offense in the passing game - but even then I'd still prefer at least a bit of emphasis on running the ball because an elite passing game will open up great opportunities - we saw that in our 2008 playoff run.

I will say these young extra-mobile QBs are adding new dimensions to both the running and passing attack. Being able to execute the read-option, take off running for big yards on a regular passing play, stretch the amount of time to get the ball to receivers, make defenders bite harder on play-action, etc.

Khodder - do you know what percentage of the plays were QB runs? Also, what percentage of the yard totals were on those QB runs?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khodder


Moderator - MVP
Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 50230
Location: New New York
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yibbyl wrote:
Having a more balanced offense IMO means you will likely get more opportunities for mismatches on both sides of the ball, while at the same time reducing the number of mismatches you might face.


But again that seems like balance for the sake of balance. You are going in with the preconceived notion that you are going to run and pass in equal doses. What if a team then (not realistic by hypothetical) decides the come out with a 5 man box every play. Every time you pass the football you are missing out on the matchup advantage that running vs 5 in the box provides you.

The vice versa is true, what if (as you state you want to run to set up a deep ball.) a team comes out and puts 8 1/2 or 9 men in the box? Every time you run you are ignoring the likely matchup advantage you have in the passing game.

I am not saying balance is bad. What I am saying is that balance for the sake of balance is bad. You want to take advantage of every possible matchup advantage you have. If that means running the ball 60% of the time then that is what you do. If the next game the matchup advantages dictate that you pass 70% of the time, you do that.

What you need to do this however, is a good offensive line, a smart quarterback, and an offensive coaching staff willing to give the QB full freedom to check to different plays at the LOS.
_________________
FFMD 2014 - ARIZONA CARDINALS GM - CLICK ME - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
Yibbyl


Joined: 21 Apr 2011
Posts: 2300
Location: Redding, CA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khodder wrote:
Yibbyl wrote:
Having a more balanced offense IMO means you will likely get more opportunities for mismatches on both sides of the ball, while at the same time reducing the number of mismatches you might face.


But again that seems like balance for the sake of balance. You are going in with the preconceived notion that you are going to run and pass in equal doses. What if a team then (not realistic by hypothetical) decides the come out with a 5 man box every play. Every time you pass the football you are missing out on the matchup advantage that running vs 5 in the box provides you.

The vice versa is true, what if (as you state you want to run to set up a deep ball.) a team comes out and puts 8 1/2 or 9 men in the box? Every time you run you are ignoring the likely matchup advantage you have in the passing game.

I am not saying balance is bad. What I am saying is that balance for the sake of balance is bad. You want to take advantage of every possible matchup advantage you have. If that means running the ball 60% of the time then that is what you do. If the next game the matchup advantages dictate that you pass 70% of the time, you do that.

What you need to do this however, is a good offensive line, a smart quarterback, and an offensive coaching staff willing to give the QB full freedom to check to different plays at the LOS.

If a team comes at me 5 in the box every play, I would do exactly what you expect me to do - attempt to set a new franchise rushing record! Realistically, after a few plays/series, I guarantee you any NFL caliber DC is gonna make sure I see something different and I'm sure you know this. Striving for balance does not mean we purposely abandon common sense. Again, striving for something approximating balance should aid in finding mismatches. You don't ignore those just so at the end of the season you can say you nailed your goal of rushing 48.5% of the time.

To your 1st bolded statement, "Yes!" and this is exactly the goal of being willing to mix it up to the point that the D might not know what to expect and so puts certain defensive players on the field or utilizes formations you can take advantage of. I think you might be locking onto some specific rushing percentage goal, when we both actually are agreeing that the playcalling should strive to take advantage of mismatches. Over the course of a season though, it is my opinion that the playcalling needs to have enough balance so that it becomes difficult for a team to know what we will likely do facing 3rd and 4 with the ball on the left hash of our own 40 yard line. I also believe that over the season, the various team's defenses will handle situations in a variety of different ways, allowing us to address these situations with both pass and run yielding "balance".

As for your 2nd bolded statement, I couldn't agree more. Further having those things allows a team a better opportunity to successfully dictate to the D as opposed to always reacting to what they give. There are obvious times this is necessary...goal line stands, for example. And again, as I mentioned earlier, I believe a willingness to run the ball more than say 35% allows our own D to not only stay more refreshed and face fewer potential mismatches, but to also possibly take advantage of schematic/situational mismatches of their own.

Philosophical differences, I guess...they're gonna happen. (shrug)
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Arizona Cardinals All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group